How 'bout dem pretty pictures! Graphics are an integral part of video games. Without it, we would be playing text adventures. I tend to see a lot of disagreement regarding the graphical fidelity of games. While beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder, I often find myself wondering how much a game's visuals matter with respect to its design. Some games are really fun, and although the graphics aren't stunning, they look fine.
An example I can give is Age of Empires: Age of Kings for the Nintendo DS. I didn't buy the system for it, but it quickly became the go-to game for me. It's still loads of fun to play, and I've easily sank over 50hrs into it over the years. Graphically, it's not a looker when you compare it to other games. The thing is, I always thought it looked good.
In the case of AoE, I think it falls into the "does the job" territory. Visuals do an adequate job of illustrating gameplay, even though the models and effects are on the primitive side. The game can be played coherently, and with that, I can focus on playing the game instead of gawking at pretty pictures or putting it down out of revulsion.
On the flipside, there is Mario Galaxy, which is a pleasure to look at - graphics are a focal point. Even with the advance of technology over to the Wii U, I still think the game looks great. Yes, Super Mario 3D World is an overall better looking game, but I'm nonetheless impressed with Galaxy's visuals.
So how much do graphics matter to you? Can you think of a less than impressive looking game that has given you hours of enjoyment? How much do you feel graphics matter in the balancing act with gameplay?
Log in to comment